Preventing Misuse
Customs immediately informed the Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC), the French organization tasked with preventing the misuse of the protected designation of origin “Champagne.” The CIVC is known for interpreting its duties broadly: anyone who even briefly refers to Champagne in their communication is directly approached. In this case, the CIVC promptly contacted Ferminadaza, the distributor of Cult Gaia clothing in Europe and the recipient of the dresses. The parties quickly reached an agreement: Ferminadaza removed the word “champagne” from the labels, and the dresses were then released.
Champagne’s Reputation
However, to the CIVC’s surprise, Ferminadaza was unwilling to commit to never using “champagne” on Cult Gaia clothing labels again in the future. That is why CIVC filed a lawsuit. The CIVC argued that by continuing to label clothing with the color term “champagne,” Ferminadaza was unlawfully benefiting from the reputation of the Champagne name, which is prohibited under the European Regulation for agricultural products.
Beige, Ecru, or Caramel
Ferminadaza countered that it is mandatory and customary to mention the color—an essential characteristic of the product—on clothing labels. However, according to the CIVC, there is no such thing as a “champagne color” because champagne wine comes in various shades, from nearly white to salmon pink. Champagne is also not an official Pantone designation, and many clothing companies label this color as beige, ecru, camel, cream, sand, café latte, or caramel, according to the CIVC.
Champagne as a Common Color Name
In its ruling on September 9, the Dutch court determined that Ferminadaza had convincingly demonstrated that the term “champagne” has been commonly used for more than a century to describe a color within the “cream/beige” spectrum. Even the Dikke van Dale, the most authorative Dutch dictionary, defines “champagne” as “having the color of champagne.”
No Association with Champagne Wine
According to the court, consumers will simply interpret “champagne” on a clothing label as a typical indication of the garment’s color. “There is no reason to believe why, in this context, consumers would associate the word ‘champagne’ with the protected designation of origin ‘Champagne,” the court ruled. The CIVC’s claim was dismissed, and the organization was ordered to pay legal costs of over €10,000. It is not yet known whether the CIVC will appeal.
Bas Kist
Banner photo by Tristan Gassert on Unsplash
This article was previously published (in Dutch) on Adformatie.
